Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Neogie Bros. & Ors vs The Cesc Limited & Ors on 13 April, 2011
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas
W.P.No.5584(W) of 2010
Neogie Bros. & Ors.
-vs-
The CESC Limited & Ors.
Mr. A. Chatterjee
Mr. Syed Nurul Arefin ....for the petitioners
Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya ....for the sixth respondent
Heard on : April 13, 2011 Judgment on : April 13, 2011 The Court : The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated March 16, 2010 are seeking a mandamus commanding CESC to give them supply of electricity.
Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as tenants occupying the premises in question the petitioners are entitled to supply of electricity, but that for wrongful objection of the private respondents CESC could not give them supply.
Counsel for the sixth respondent disputing the correctness of the allegation submits that for undisclosed reasons the petitioners obtaining an order dated August 30, 2008 (at p.39) from the Civil Court before which the suit filed by the sixth respondent was pending did not take any step for execution of the order.
It is evident that after obtaining an order from the Civil Court by filing an application in the eviction suit filed by the sixth respondent, the petitioners did not take any step for execution of the order. The Civil Court permitted the petitioners to take steps for shifting of the meter from its existing location. It is also to be noted that the sixth respondent has no objection to the shifting of the meter from its existing location to an undisputed common place.
The suit filed by the sixth respondent has been decreed, and feeling aggrieved by the eviction decree the petitioners have lodged a first appeal that is pending. In my opinion, instead of applying to CESC seeking an independent supply to the premises, the petitioners obtaining the requisite order from the Civil Court ought to have taken steps for execution thereof. Since the suit has now been decreed and the appeal therefrom is pending before the first appellate Court, in my opinion, the petitioners should be relegated to that Court.
For these reasons, I dispose of the petition saying as follows. The petitioners will be free to apply to the first appellate Court for an order permitting them to shift the meter from its existing location to an undisputed common place. If an application is filed, then the first appellate Court shall decide it in the light of the previous order dated August 30, 2008 made in the suit. Needless to say that if the Court permits the petitioners to shift the meter, then the petitioners will be free to request CESC to take steps accordingly. No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) sb